Anthro Notes
National Museum of Natural History Bulletin for Teachers
Vol. 17 No. 1/2 Winter/Spring 1995REPATRIATION: A CLASH OF WORLD VIEWS
[EDITOR'S NOTE: 'Repatriation' refers tothe legislatively mandated return of humanremains and specific categories of culturalitems, currently housed in museums and otherinstitutions, to culturally affiliated NativeAmerican groups. The point of returningmaterials in most instances is for purposes ofreburial, though with regard to sacred itemsthere is often an element of culturalrevitalization involved. In this and thefollowing two articles, Smithsoniananthropologists offer their perspectives on thisincreasingly important issue.]
Introduction
Repatriation is a topic of unparalleledimportance in the museum world today,particularly as museum personnel struggle tomeet deadlines imposed by law. There is alsoconcern about the loss of museum collections.In addition to museums, repatriation is an issueof extreme importance for Native Americans,archaeologists, and physical anthropologists.In Indian country, there has been a groundswell of interest in and commitment to seeingthe mandate for repatriation carried out. In the
VMfc CAROLS "WE. PfVsT ?.
Page 2 Anthro Notes
professional community, repatriation has hada profound impact on the way archaeologists
'do business' in the United States.
The idea of repatriation represents a highlycharged issue where different currents ofhistory, science, and politics converge. It is apoint at which the interests of museums,Native peoples, archaeologists, and physicalanthropologists intersect, where oldrelationships are being shattered and new onesforged. Repatriation has frequently beencharacterized as a clash of world views, theoutcome of a head-on collision betweendiametrically opposed belief systems. It bearsnote that the two belief systems involved arenot of equal valence within contemporarysociety. One system pertains to a subordinateminority group within the United States, theother to the majority. It took an act ofCongress to move the scientific community toaddress the concerns raised by Native peoples.
For both Native people and non-Nativescientists, human remains possess meaning.For many, if not all, Indian peoples, ancestralbones hold spiritual significance and power.For the scientist, skeletal remains aremeaningful as sources of information: as 'data'for biomedical research, for studies of theevolution of human disease, and for solvingforensic cases. For the physicalanthropologist, human remains have been de-personalized and de-sanctified, though they are
still highly meaningful. The fundamentaldifferences in these two approaches to humanskeletal remains relate to differences in worldview and values systems.Embedded within the repatriation movementare a number of fundamental issues thatchallenge our views of Native Americanpeoples, call into question the "absolute"values of science, and force us to take a
critical look at the role ofmuseums in Western
society.
Repatriation may best be understood withinthe broader historical context of global de-colonization. It parallels and is on acontinuum with other indigenous movementsaround the world in which Native rights arebeing asserted. Among the issues beingpressed are the right of control over one's owncultural heritage and the right to the sanctity ofthe grave.
In addition to human remains, the categoriesof cultural items encompassed within therepatriation mandate include funerary articles,sacred objects, and items of culturalpatrimony. Legally, these items are defined asfollows:
Funerary objects are items believed to havebeen intentionally placed with an individual atthe time of death as part of a death rite orcultural ceremony.
Sacred objects are defined as specificceremonial articles that are needed bytraditional Native American religious leadersfor the practice of traditional Native Americanreligions.
Cultural Patrimony is defined as communallyowned cultural property that has an on-goinghistorical, traditional, or cultural importancecentral to a Native American group. Suchobjects, by definition, cannot be alienated,appropriated or conveyed by any individual,regardless of whether or not that person is amember of a Native American tribe or NativeHawaiian organization.
History of the Repatriation Movement inthe U.S.
The idea of repatriation is rooted in thehistorical context of the civil rights movements
Page 3 Anthro Notes
of the 1960s. During this period, NativeAmericans, like other minority groups withinthe United States, gained new-found politicalinfluence and recognition. It was during theactivist climate of this era that some Nativepeople began to express strong opposition toarchaeological excavations, the public displayof American Indian burials, and the permanentcuration of Native American remains inmuseums.
The differential treatment ofNative burials andthe seeming disregard displayed byarchaeologists toward them were seen aspowerful symbols of oppression and thepervasiveness of racist practices for the Nativecommunity. In 1974, an activist group knownas American Indians Against Desecration(AIAD) formed, with the explicit intent ofbringing political pressure to bear on thequestion of the return and reburial of NativeAmerican remains. They argued that allIndians, past and present, are spiritually linked.As a result, modern Native peoples wereresponsible for the security of their ancestors'remains. They also argued that the removaland curation ofhuman remains caused spiritualdisturbance that could have a potentialnegative impact on the well-being of modernNative peoples.
Repatriation Legislation
Through the efforts of the AIAD and thewidespread media attention it attracted, therepatriation issue slowly bubbled to the surfaceof public consciousness and eventuallycaptured the attention of several sympatheticlawmakers. The first piece of legislation totreat this issue was the National Museum ofthe American Indian (NMAI) Act, which waspassed by Congress in 1989. The principalfunctions of this Act were to authorize thetransfer of the Heye Foundation's Museum ofthe American Indian collections from New
York to the Smithsonian Institution. Thismagnificent collection of Native Americanartifacts from all over the western hemispherewas to form the basis of the new NationalMuseum of the American Indian. The NMAIAct also required the Smithsonian to inventoryand assess the cultural origins of collectionspotentially affiliated with Native American andNative Hawaiian peoples. Human remains andfunerary objects for which cultural affiliationcould be established were to be offered forreturn to the appropriate tribal group. Theidea that there must be a demonstrablerelationship of cultural affiliation between theremains or objects in question and the tribalgroup to whom they would be offered forreturn was the cornerstone of this repatriationlegislation.
The Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed thefollowing year, in 1990. This law expandedthe repatriation mandate beyond humanremains and funerary objects to include thecategories of sacred objects and culturalpatrimony. It also extended the applicability ofthis mandate to all federally funded museums,institutions, and agencies. The Smithsonianwas explicitly exempted from NAGPRA dueto the fact that it was already covered by theNMAI Act.NAGPRA has four provisions:
1. To increase protection for Native Americangraves and provide for the disposition ofcultural remains inadvertently discovered ontribal and federal lands;
2. To prohibit traffic in Native Americanhuman remains;
3. To require federal museums and institutionsto inventory their collections of NativeAmerican human remains and funerary objects
Page 4 Anthro Notes
within five years and repatriate them toculturally affiliated tribes upon request; and
4. To require museums to provide summariesof their collections of Native American sacredobjects and cultural patrimony within threeyears and repatriate them if it is demonstratedthat the museum does not have right ofpossession.NAGPRA has been characterized as animportant piece of human rights legislation forNative Americans. It also represents landmarklegislation for museums in that it recognizesthat scientific rights do not automatically takeprecedence over religious and cultural beliefsin the United States. NAGPRA has served toestablish a new ethical outlook for museums intheir relationships with Native peoples andother minority groups. It provides aframework within which museums and Nativepeoples can begin to develop new kinds ofpartnerships and collaborative relations. Thepassage of these laws represents theculmination of years of struggle for NativeAmerican groups. In essence, they legislaterespect for the dead.
Issues in Repatriation
The central issue in the repatriation debaterevolves around the question of whetherNative American interests in reburyingancestral skeletal remains take precedenceover the interests of archaeologists andphysical anthropologists in studying andpreserving them. From the outset, repatriationwas portrayed as a controversy betweenmuseums, archaeologists, and anthropologistson one side, and Native peoples on the other.Discussion between the various partiesaffected by the repatriation issue became verypolarized and was often characterized as adebate between science and religion.
Portraying the repatriation issue in these termshad the effect of casting Native peoples asanti-science or anti-intellectual, playing uponand promoting stereotypes of Native peoplesas "backwards" or "primitive." To escape thiskind of simplistic analysis, it is more helpful tothink ofthe controversy over repatriation as aclash between competing value systems ratherthan as one of science versus religion. Thisrequires a recognition of the fact that scienceis legitimately subject to criticism on the levelof values as well as facts. Anthropology andarchaeology, and science in general, have theirown agendas, their particular politics being acommitment to the story of progress.To better understand the positions and worldviews of the protagonists in the repatriationdebate, it is important to consider thearguments and issues from the different sidesof the prism. From the perspective of NativeAmericans, the points at issue in repatriationrevolve around the differential treatment of thedead, the lack of respect for Native beliefs andfeelings, treatment of people as objects ofstudy, and racism, as evidenced indisproportionate numbers of Native Americanremains given over to scientific study. Fromthe professional community's point of view,the notion of repatriating collections forpurposes of reburial is contrary to the mostfundamental principles of preservation andconservation. The loss of collections is seen asan irreplaceable loss of data for scientific andeducational purposes. The different issuesembedded in these two world views areelaborated upon below.
Native Concerns:
1) Many museums, the popular media, andpublic school texts present stereotypes ofIndian peoples as foreign and vanishingmembers of a different race, distinct and apartfrom the rest of us. The generally held belief
Page 5 Anthro Notes
that Native cultures would become extinct inNorth America was one of the originaljustifications for the collecting practices ofmuseums and the work of anthropologists inthe 19th century. Reburial is an importantpolitical issue on the Indian rights agenda inpart because, by asserting their rights toprotect the sanctity of their ancestors, Indianpeople assert that they have not vanished, andthat their beliefs and feelings are entitled to thesame respect as other Americans;
2) Native Americans view the collections ofIndian human remains housed in museums asdisrespectful, racist, and colonialist. To many,the collecting of their ancestors' bones bymuseums is a source of pain and humiliation,the last stage of a conquest that had alreadyrobbed them of their lands and their way oflife. They cite, as evidence, museums'institutionalized treatment of NativeAmericans as objects of natural history, in
which elements oftheir traditional lifeways arecollected as specimens, and the remains oftheir ancestors are collected like fossils.Native peoples ask what knowledge has beenproduced through the study of these remainsthat is of value to them. They also want toknow why museums need so many skeletalremains to study;
3) There is a question of differential respectfor the sanctity of the grave. Native peoplesask why Euro-American burials that areaccidentally exposed or uncovered arereburied elsewhere, while Native Americanburials are sent to museums or universities forfurther study. Indian arguments for thesanctity of the grave tend to be based onbeliefs in the sacred nature of burials, and aconcern for the spiritual well-being of thedeceased. Their concept of ancestry is acommunal one that compels respect for thedead even in the absence of direct familial
\K)W0^E ^uauRftu \c\£*ATfc&£ ?
Page 6 Anthro Notes
relations. The differences in attitudes betweenEuro-Americans and Native Americans may beseen to revolve around secular versus sacredconstructs with respect to the sanctity of thegrave and individual versus communityresponsibility to one's forebears; and
4) There is also the question of who controlsthe past; who has the right to interpret andwrite history. Native peoples have, for themost part, been denied the ability to interprettheir own past. There has been a generalrefusal by scientists to admit to different waysof knowing, understanding, or interpreting thepast. The past has been traditionally seen asthe privileged domain of archaeologists. Thisis related to the elevation of Science as thesupreme epistemology and the correspondingdevaluation of other ways of 'knowing' theworld, such as through oral history, legend,and myth. In the context of de-colonization,the past forms a critical locus in the struggle toreconstitute cultural identities and culturehistories that have been severely impacted bythe relentless drive and destructive policies ofthe State. The past forms the raw material formany and varied interests besides those ofarchaeologists, to be appropriated, preserved,exalted, or denied as required in the service ofcontemporary goals and motivations.
Museum/Scientific Concerns:
1) For many in the museum world, the notionof repatriating collections for purposes ofreburial runs contrary to the most fundamentalprinciples of preservation and conservation. Itis viewed as tantamount to the purposefuldestruction of knowledge. Museums are seen,by those who value them, as storehouses ofdata for future research. Physicalanthropologists argue that the materials now inthe collections provide information on thehistory and descent of the people represented;
new developments in the areas of DNAresearch, genetics, and chemical analysis in thepast decade may hold the key to suchquestions as the peopling of the New World,human origins, and the evolution of disease;
2) Scholars also make the argument thatarchaeological finds in this country constitutethe 'national heritage' and don't belong to one
'special interest group.' Since all humans aremembers of a single species, and ancientskeletons are the remnants of non-duplicableevolutionary events, all living and futurepeoples have a right to know about and studythese human remains. That is, ancient humanskeletons belong to everyone;
3) It was museums and anthropologists whowere, in large part, responsible for thepreservation ofknowledge ofNative Americanlifeways when Native cultures were on thewane or in the process of being systematicallydestroyed during the late 19th and early 20thcenturies. Museum people note with no littleirony that in cultural revitalization movements,Native peoples have often recoveredinformation on their heritage and traditionsfrom the very institutions they now oppose;
4) It has also been argued that it would beracist not to have collections of aboriginalremains in New World museums. Such asituation would imply a lack of interest in thehistory of Native peoples of this continent.
Positive Outcomes of Repatriation
While the passage of the recent legislationprovides a partial answer to the question ofWhere do we go from here?' the laws do notfully settle the issues. The murky languageemployed by the authors of the federal Actsleaves a number of technical and philosophicalquestions unreconciled.
Page 7 Anthro Notes
These may prove to be intractable unless weare able to understand the repatriation issuewithin the broader sociopolitical and historicalcontext of global de-colonization. What we'rewitnessing with the repatriation movement isa struggle for self-determination and controlover cultural heritage. This strugglerepresents an effort on the part of indigenouspeoples to reconstitute a collective culturalidentity, in the aftermath of colonialism.
While having a direct and profound impact onNative communities in this country,repatriation also can be construed as a step inthe right direction toward improving relationsamong Native peoples, anthropologists, andmuseums. Repatriation legislation provides aframework within which to develop betterlines of communication and foster greaterunderstanding and dialogue between thedifferent parties affected. The change inattitudes and values developing out ofencounters based on the repatriation mandatehas begun to lay a foundation for museums,anthropologists, and Native peoples to worktogether in a spirit of mutual cooperation andcollaboration.
Repatriation Process at the NationalMuseum of Natural HistoryThe Smithsonian Institution's physicalanthropology division in the National Museumof Natural History (NMNH) houses about28,500 sets of skeletal remains. At one time,Native American remains numberedapproximately 17,600 individuals; theremainder of the collection is made up ofEuro- and African-Americans, and Europeans,Africans, and Asian peoples from various partsof the world. These collections weredeveloped during the first half of this century,through the efforts of the SmithsonianInstitution's first physical anthropologist, AlesHrdlicka.
The repatriation mandate requires theSmithsonian to inventory and assess thecultural origins of collections potentiallyaffiliated with contemporary Native Americanand Native Hawaiian peoples. Affected tribalgroups are to be notified of the Museum'sfindings and consulted with regard to thedisposition of culturally affiliated remains orobjects. The Museum facilitates the return ofthe materials in question upon the request ofthe affiliated tribal group.One of most sensitive collections in theNMNH is the Army Medical Museumcollection of skeletal remains, which weretransferred to the Smithsonian around the turnofthe century. This collection contains about2300 sets of remains, many of which date tohistoric periods and are explicitly identifiedwith regard to cultural origins. The ArmyMedical Museum was founded in 1862 toperform biomedical and pathological studieson the Civil War dead. At the close of thisWar, the emphasis of the Army MedicalMuseum shifted to the collection of NativeAmerican skeletal remains. With theoutbreaks of the Spanish-American War andWorld War I, research funding was divertedaway from the museum, and its collectingfunction ceased.
The repatriation legislation offers little in theway of technical guidelines for how toproceed with this effort. It was thus left tothe Museum to set up a workable program,which involved the establishment of a formalRepatriation Office. To date, much attentionhas been focused on the historical remains,with the Army Medical Museum collectionsbeing the most sensitive. Museum personnelcontinue to work through these collections,documenting specific information relevant tocultural identification from each set of remains.In addition to responding to requests, theNMNH also takes a pro-active approach to the
Page 8 Anthro Notes
inventory process. Groups that have notcontacted the Smithsonian Institution arenotified if collections of potential interest tothem are identified during the inventoryprocess. In addition to the documentation ofphysical remains, the Repatriation Office ofthe NMNH is also producing summaries of theethnographic collections.From a core staff of four in September 1991,the office has grown to include 20 regular staffand six full-time contractors. The Museumhas sponsored eleven Native Americanprofessionals, students, and interns to date,one of whom is now a permanent member ofthe staff. The office currently has about 35formal repatriation requests on file. These arehandled on a first come, first served basis.Fifteen separate repatriations have beencompleted to date by the NMNH, and twelveothers are in progress.Outreach
In addition to the inventory and documentationwork of the Repatriation Office, outreachefforts to the Native American community area high priority. Repatriation staff havetravelled to the Pacific Northwest, thenorthern Plains, Oklahoma, the Southeast, theSouthwest, and Alaska to meet with leaders ofdifferent tribal groups. The purpose of these
visits is to provide information on therepatriation program at the NMNH andcollections of potential interest to the tribes.Staff members have participated in a numberof the regional consultations held by theNational Museum of the American Indian invarious parts of the country as well.A standing committee made up of fiveindependent, external individuals is in place toreview any disputed cases. Three of themembers of this committee were elected by theNative American community. To date, there
have been no disputes for the committee toarbitrate.
It is important to remember that there is noPan-Indian religion or single viewpoint on howto deal with the dead. Cultural protocols varyby tribe. Some Native groups feel that thehousing of the dead in museums threatens thespiritual harmony and balance of the world;many say they personally feel the spiritualdisquiet of their ancestors who are stored inmuseums. Another viewpoint is held by theZufii tribe, which does not want skeletalremains returned to the Zufii reservation at thistime. They feel the remains have beendesecrated, and there is no method of dealingwith them in any traditional Zufii way . TheZunis avoid the disturbance of grave siteswhen possible, but when a burial must beexposed (due to construction, for instance),the remains are excavated by an archaeologist,and basic information about the individual isdetermined by a physical anthropologist. Theremains, along with all grave goods, are thenreburied out of harm's way, as close to theoriginal burial as possible.
The returns conducted to date have varied.The procedures have ranged from museumpersonnel boxing and shipping remains, toprivate ceremonies held in the museum bytribal representatives, to very publicceremonies. An example of a particularlyinteresting case study from the Northwest isdiscussed below.
Tamara L. BrayRepatriation OfficeSmithsonian InstitutionMuseum of Natural History